George  Washington  Flowers 
Memorial  Collection 

DUKE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 

ESTABLISHED  BY  THE 
FAMILY  OF 
COLONEL  FLOWERS 


Digitized  by 

the  Internet  Archive 

in  2015 

https://archive.org/details/ifevolutionistru01durh 


E.  C.  DURHAM 


fSf  &uoluti 


ion 


rue 

By 

E.  C.  DURHAM 

(Pastor  M.  E.  Church,  South,  Vanceboro, 
North  Carolina.) 


SECOND  EDITION 
Revised  and  enlarged. 


All  rights  reserved  by  the  author. 


August,  1922. 


TO 

my  three  little  children,  who 
face  a  world  of  truth  yet  to 
them  quite  unknown,  this 
little  volume  is  prayerfully 
dedicated,  with  the  earnest 
prayer  that  they  may  become 
diligent  and  careful  students, 
and  that  they  may  find  the 
truth,  and  then  "the  truth 
shall  make  them  free." 


r  ~ 

SALE  PRICES  OF  THIS  BOOK 

One  copy  —   

$1.00 

12  to  100  copies,  per  copy   

.70 

100  or  more  copies,  per  copy 

.65 

Order  from  the  author — 

E.  C.  DURHAM 

Vanceboro,  N.  C. 

CONTENTS 


Preface   13 

Chapter  I,  Brief  Scientific  Pointers  17-28 

Chapter  II,  Truth  and  the  Seeking  After 

It  ..29-34: 

Chapter  III,  Science  and  Religion  35-39 

Chapter  IV,  What  of  God?  41-45 

Chapter  V,  What  of  Higher  Criticism  ?_47-51 

Chapter  VI,  What  of  the  BibHcal  Ac- 
count of  Creation?  53-60 

Chapter  VII,  What  of  Miracle?  61-65 

An  Afterthought   67 

What  Some  Critics  Say  About  This 

Book  69-72 


PREFACE 

While  this  second  edition  is  somewhat  revised 
and  is  more  complete  than  the  first  edition,  the 
meaning  is  the  same  and  the  general  discussion 
remains  unaltered. 

I  have  not  written  this  book  to  try  to  prove  that 
evolution  is  true.  What  I  have  aimed  at  is  this: 
To  help  the  multitudes  who  believe  evolution  is 
true  to  see  that,  even  though  evolution  is  a  fact, 
the  fundamentals  of  the  Christian  faith  remain  the 
same. 

I  hope  this  little  book  will  be  read  with  broad 
sympathy,  for  the  average  remark  made  in  the 
work-a-day  world  relative  to  evolution  indicates  a 
poor  conception  of  the  claims  of  evolution,  and  even 
as  if  there  were  no  sacredness  connected  with  it. 

Let  me  state  that  one  can  be  a  thorough  and 
zealous  Christian  who  accepts  evolution  even  in  its 
entirety.  If  evolution  is  true,  the  following  things 
are  also  true  fundamentally:  The  existence  of  God, 
the  Bible  story  of  creation,  the  place  of  miracle, 
and  also  a  vital  place  for  Higher  Criticism.  I  have 
thrown  light  upon  these  things  in  this  little  book, 
and  I  believe  that  all  who  read  it  will  be  helped. 

It  is  with  the  deepest  sympathy  for  believers  in 
evolution  that  I  have  written  this  book.  Some  have 
pronounced  all  argument  on  evolution  simple  fool- 
ishness. I  have  not  so  pronounced  it,  and  shall 
never  do  so.  It  is  a  sacred  thing  to  me,  and  to 
many  others.  Many  people  cannot  do  other  than 
believe  in  evolution.  My  contention  is,  if  they  are 
going  to  believe  in  evolution  despite  whatever  any- 
body else  says,  let  them  believe  it,  but  let  them 
believe  in  God  also,  and  see  God  in  the  whole  pro- 
cess. Therefore,  with  the  hope  of  helping  many 
and  of  hurting  none  I  send  out  this  carefully 
written  book  to  as  many  as  will  receive  it. 

I  am  deeply  appreciative  of  the  good  things 
friends  and  critics  have  written  me  concerning  this 
book,  some  of  whose  letters  may  be  read  in  the 
latter  part  of  this  edition.  — E.  C.  D. 


CHAPTER  I. 


BRIEF  SCIENTIFIC  POINTERS. 

As  a  text  from  the  world  of  science  for 
this  book  the  following  words  found  in  the 
New  International  Encyclopedia  will  suffice: 
"The  proof  of  man's  origin  from  some  other 
primate  is  now  past  dispute.  In  fact,  no 
scientist  now  doubts  man's  descent,  less  di- 
rectly from  all  lower  forms  of  life,  and  more 
immediately  from  a  common  ancestor  with 
the  anthropoid  apes." 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  in  the  outset  that 
the  noted  Charles  Darwin  was  not  the  only 
scientist  who  has  believed  in  evolution. 
Neither  was  Darwin  the  first  believer.  We 
will  find  upon  investigation  that  ''attempts 
have  been  made  since  the  days  of  Empedocles 
and  of  Aristotle  to  explain  the  origin  of  the 
universe."  And  while  Aristotle  is  regarded 
as  the  father  of  the  theory  of  descent,  the 
true  founder  of  evolution  was  Lamarck,  an 
outstanding  zoologist  who  lived  from  1744 
to  1829.  Other  strong  supporters  of  the 
belief  were  Hooker,  Huxley,  Fritz  Muller, 
Haeckel,  Wallace,  and  Weissman,  some  as 
contemporaries  of  Darwin  and  some  as  his 
followers.   Ernst  Haeckel,  a  Geraian  scholar 


17 


and  author,  wrote  such  a  convincing  book  on 
the  "Evolution  of  Man"  as  to  cause  Darwin 
to  state  that  if  he  had  known  such  would  be 
produced  he  would  not  have  written  his 
"Descent  of  Man."  Then  certainly  to  this  list 
of  scientists  who  believed  in  evolution  many 
more  have  been  added,  even,  in  fact,  all 
scientists ;  for,  in  accordance  with  the  above 
encyclopedic,  authoritative  statement,  "no 
scientist  now  doubts  man^s  descent  *  *  * 
from  the  lower  forms  of  life." 

Nor  is  the  belief  in  evolution  confined  to 
those  whom  the  world  knows  as  eminent 
scientists.  Scientific  discoveries  have  not 
been  made  and  kept  in  a  secluded  comer  of 
the  world,  nor  has  the  teaching  of  modern 
scientists  been  in  vain,  so  far  as  the  broad- 
casting of  that  belief  is  concerned.  Some 
seed  have  fallen  on  good  ground;  and,  some 
so  falling  all  along  through  the  years  of  this 
teaching,  there  are  today  untold  thousands 
who  believe  in  evolution.  Many  scholars  are 
so  convinced  that  evolution  is  true  that  they 
regard  it  as  a  simple  matter.  Many  students, 
both  in  and  out  of  school,  are  becoming  so 
convinced.  This  belief  is  necessarily  bound 
to  grow.  Its  growing  is  a  part  of  evolution 
itself.    It  perhaps  will  be  as  simple  some 


18 


day  to  the  human  family  as  is  today  the  fact 
of  electricity,  gravitation,  and  the  roundness 
of  the  earth,  or  even  the  heat  of  the  sun. 

This  belief  is  now  so  universal  that  some 
of  our  modem  historians  write  concerning 
the  course  of  things  through  the  long  ages 
that  preceded  man's  appearance  in  the  world 
almost  as  unhesitatingly  as  if  they  had  been 
eye  witnesses  of  the  whole  process,  and  they 
seem  to  be  as  clear  in  their  mind  concerning 
the  evolution  of  man  from  the  lower  forms 
of  life  as  being  a  fact  as  of  any  simple  fact 
of  present  day  occurrence.  Such  a  historian 
is  Mr.  H.  G.  Wells,  as  one  may  judge  from  his 
most  fascinating  book,  "The  Outline  of  His- 
tory." He  begins  in  this  history,  however, 
with  this  statement :  "We  do  not  know  how 
life  began  upon  the  earth."  He  does  not 
claim  to  believe  in  spontaneous  generation  of 
life  as  a  starting  point.  But  after  its  begin- 
ning, he  believes  in  life's  long  process  of 
development,  through  the  millions  of  years, 
until  it  brought  forth  man  as  its  fine  product. 
He  does  not  claim  to  know  of  all  life's  con- 
necting links  in  this  long  process,  but  he 
seems  to  have  no  doubt  in  his  mind  that  man 
so  came. 

Many  others  are  numbered  in  this  class  of 


19 


thinking.  It  has  become  simple  to  them. 
And  instead  of  its  making  infidels  of  them^ 
to  many  of  them  God  has  become  a  greater 
reality.  And  if  God  has  not  become  a  greater 
reality  to  all  of  them,  it  is  simply  the  fault 
of  those  whose  weakness  has  kept  them  from 
grasping  the  finality  of  things  and  the  deep 
meaning  of  all  existence  of  real  life. 

Now,  is  it  not  possible  that  it  is  because 
of  prejudice,  or  narrow-mindedness,  or  mere 
stupidity,  or  lack  of  investigation,  or  a  mis- 
understanding that  more,  even  well-nigh  all 
men,  do  not  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  evolu- 
tion? Perhaps  it  is  possible  that  tradition 
and  a  misunderstanding  of  Scriptures,  or  the 
taking  of  all  Scriptures  literally,  have  caused 
the  multitudes  to  scorn  and  sneer  at  the  very 
mention  of  the  doctrine.  The  great  majority 
of  people  have  not  studied  geology,  biology^ 
natural  history,  zoology,  nor  any  branch  of 
science,  and  it  is  difficult  for  them  to  have 
sympathetic  minds  towards  the  claims  of 
science.  From  this  source  usually  comes  the 
bulk  of  criticism  against  those  who  assert  a 
belief  in  evolution.  They  scarcely  know  what 
science  is  oftentimes.  They  have  failed  to 
consider  that  science  is  indeed  a  very  sacred 
thing.    If  the  whole  world  had  read  what 


20 


real  scientists  have  learned  as  the  world  has 
read  the  Scriptures,  with  far  more  apprecia- 
tive minds  would  all  men  view  the  doctrine 
of  evolution.  But  since  science  is  looked  upon 
by  so  many  as  something  very  contrary  to 
the  plan  of  God,  and  the  laws  of  nature  re- 
garded, if  even  recognized  at  all,  as  alto- 
gether separate  and  apart  from  God's  deal- 
ings with  His  people,  the  unmistakable  truths 
of  science,  though  so  near,  are  far  away  from 
the  vision  of  the  masses.  And  many  are 
groping  along  in  darkness,  thinking  perhaps 
that  their  eyes  are  open.  They  are  blind  to 
what  is  unmistakably  clear  to  countless 
thousands.  They  are  seemingly  opposed  to 
science  and  scientists,  regardless  of  clear 
scientific  facts.  But  opposition  to  scientific 
truth  is  opposition  to  a  part,  at  least,  of  all 
great  truth. 

If  the  study  of  geology  reveals  anything, 
it  seems  to  prove  that  this  earth  on  which 
we  live  was  not  formed  in  a  day  as  it  now  is, 
but  that  it  came  to  its  approximate  present 
condition  through  long  thousands  or  millions, 
or  even  billions  of  years.  It  seems  that  long 
ages  must  have  passed  before  the  molten 
sphere  (or  mass)  cooled  down  sufficiently  for 
a  crust  to  be  formed  and  for  the  first  signs 


21 


of  life  to  appear.  It  seems  that  long  millions 
of  years  must  have  passed  during  the  devel- 
opment of  life  from  its  lowest  forms,  and 
then  the  covering  deep  of  certain  of  these 
forms  with  great  depths  of  earth  so  grad- 
ually, which  we  find  today  as  fossilized,  and 
which  we  find  sometimes  in  the  coal  that  we 
dig  and  burn.  It  seems  that  millions  of  years 
must  have  passed  while  the  sea  changed  its 
bed  to  cover  forms  of  life,  and  finally  for  this 
sea  bottom  to  give  rise  to  a  high  mountain  in 
its  place.  Evidences  of  these  things  are  un- 
mistakable to  the  student  of  geology. 

But  some  raise  opposition  here,  claiming 
that  such  conditions  might  have  been  caused 
by  certain  tremendous  upheavals,  catastro- 
phes, cataclysms,  and  the  like.  This,  how- 
ever, is  rather  an  excuse,  or  a  dodging  of  the 
question,  than  the  getting  rid  of  real  scien- 
tific facts.  This  is  scarcely  anything  more 
than  a  supposition.  The  criticism  is  often 
hurled  against  scientists  that  their  claims  are 
based  only  on  supposition,  which  criticism  is 
false  and  unjust.  There  is  far  more  in  the 
discovery  of  things  deep  down  in  the  dirt  for 
the  side  and  the  claims  of  science  than  for 
the  side  of  those  who  stand  against  science. 
Supposition  is  sometimes  made  use  of  by  the 


22 


scientist,  but  there  is  sometimes  the  dis- 
covery of  facts  without  the  necessity  of  sup- 
position. 

Geology  also  carries  us  to  where  the  signs 
of  primeval  man  are  found,  and  perhaps  to 
some  sub-man  creature  in  the  process  of 
evolution.  We  wonder  sometimes,  therefore, 
how  many  long,  long  ages  rolled  away  while 
those  man-like  creatures  ran  like  an  animal 
on  hands  and  feet,  until  finally  man  became 
man — ^standing,  walking,  hunting— a  self- 
conscious  being,  with  that  hazy,  primitive 
intelligence,  emotion,  and  desire. 

The  critic,  however,  says,  Where  is  the 
connecting  link?  But  is  it  necessary  to  find 
it  in  its  naked,  absolute,  unmistakable  form  ? 
It  may  be  seen  more  clearly  somewhere  in 
the  years  to  come,  but  if  not,  enough  is  al- 
ready evident  to  the  real  student  to  furnish 
at  least  a  great  deal  of  satisfaction,  and 
oftentimes  a  consciousness  that  his  calcula- 
tions are  well  founded.  Certainly  some  great 
changes  took  place  somewhere  in  the  process 
of  evolution.  That  is  where  simple  mechan- 
ism is  ruled  out  and  where  God  is  especially 
recognized.  Correct  modern  science  does  not 
dare  claim  that  evolution  is  a  mere  machine 
set  to  work  alone,  to  finish  all  products  by 


23 


itself  without  a  Divine  Hand  to  guide.  Real 
science  sees  God  at  work,  and  it  especially 
recognizes  Him  at  all  the  great  and  small 
changes  in  life's  upward  march. 

And  why  should  a  man  be  judged  as  radi- 
cal, if  not  crazy,  who  can  see  God  in  that  long 
process  of  creation?  Why  is  there  so  often 
a  blazing  rage  against  him,  while  there  is 
more  often  than  men  think  a  heart  within 
him  beating  with  a  mighty  passion  for  the 
truth  and  with  a  faith  rooted  in  the  very 
center  of  God's  being?  Why  could  not  God 
choose  to  stand  at  life's  every  change,  from 
the  lower  to  the  higher  forms  of  life — all  the 
way  up  from  the  beginning  of  life  in  its  most 
infinitesimally  small  signs — to  create,  direct, 
guide,  mold,  and  fashion?  It  is  God's  power 
to  do  this  just  as  well  as  to  stand  at  one  par- 
ticular time  and,  in  a  moment,  create  man 
in  His  own  image.  True  science  today  recog- 
nizes God's  place  in  the  whole  course  of  evo- 
lution, and  dares  not  say  that  there  was  never 
any  mysterious  change.  God  is  in  the  whole 
process,  directing  and  guiding  with  His  own 
infinite  power.  These  few  remarks  ought 
to  clear  up  the  whole  contention  as  to  the 
place  of  change  and  connecting  links. 

Geology  certainly  reveals  that  man  once 

24 


dwelt  in  caves ;  and  perhaps  there  was  strife 
between  him  and  his  contemporary  animal 
creatures  and  would-be  associates  for  mas- 
tery and  ownership  of  such  a  home.  Le 
Conte,  in  his  ''Compend  of  Geology,"  tells  us 
that  ''in  a  cave  at  Mentone,  near  Nice,  has 
been  recently  found  the  almost  perfect  skel- 
eton of  an  old  man,  of  more  than  average 
height,  lying  on  his  side  in  an  easy  position, 
and  about  him  chipped  implements  and  bones 
of  extinct  animals,  among  which  were  many 
pierced  reindeer's  teeth.  All  of  these  were 
perfectly  preserved  by  a  stalagmitic  crust. 
We  may  well  imagine,"  says  he,  ''that  this 
old  hunter,  finding  his  end  approaching,  re- 
tired to  his  cave-home,  laid  himself  quietly 
down,  with  the  implements  and  trophies  of 
successful  chase  about  him,  and  gave  up  the 
ghost.  Good  Mother  Nature  then  slowly 
buried  his  remains,  and  sealed  them  up  be- 
neath a  crust  of  stalagmite."  How  long, 
then,  it  has  been  since  man  first  appeared  on 
the  stage  of  life  we  know  not.  Some  estimate 
it  at  more  than  a  hundred  thousand  years, 
while  some  at  not  more  than  ten  thousand. 

Besides  the  proof  of  an  early  appearance 
of  man  in  the  world,  the  scientist  tells  us 
that  "man's  origin  from  some  mammal  is 


25 


strongly  attested  by  the  presence  in  his  body 
of  a  large  number  of  vestigial  characters, 
which  indicate  an  ancestor  that  went  on  all 
fours — some  features  appearing  shortly  be- 
fore and  after  birth,  hinting  at  an  ape  an- 
cestry." Some  mention  the  appendix  in  man 
as  being  absolutely  worthless,  and  with  which 
we  have  constant  trouble.  They  mention  the 
fact  also  that  there  are  more  than  a  score  of 
such  useless  things  found  in  the  human  body. 
It  seems,  therefore,  that  man  is  yet  in  a 
period  of  physical  evolution,  not  yet  having 
left  off  those  things  which  are  absolutely  use- 
less. Some  claim  that  men  and  women  will 
finally  bring  forth  children  without  an  ap- 
pendix and  many  other  useless  things  in 
man. 

We  are  told  that  at  first  man  was  a  social 
being,  with  large  brain,  and  with  hands  well 
adepted  to  carrying  out  the  suggestions  of 
his  developing  intellect.  He  was,  therefore, 
the  first  tool  maker  and  worker  in  stone,  bone, 
and  wood,  and  the  first  being  to  tame  other 
animals  and  to  cultivate  the  soil.  The  scien- 
tist believes  that  man  first  lived  a  very  soli- 
tary life,  roving  and  hunting ;  and  that  tribal 
communities  finally  arose  here  and  there  as 
man  developed  and  multiplied;  and  that  he 


26 


became  a  herdsman,  then  a  farmer,  and  on 
and  on  to  newer  and  more  difficult  things. 
Some  one  states  a  belief  that  man,  during 
the  Paleolithic  age,  scattered  over  wide  areas 
of  earth's  surface,  and  that  "then  ensued  a 
process  of  isolation  by  geographical  and 
climatic  barriers  and  the  differentiation  into 
races — the  black  being  confined  to  Africa,  the 
yellow  to  Asia,  the  red  Indian  to  the 
Americas,  while  the  cradle  of  the  white  race 
was  in  the  region  now  including  central  and 
southern  Europe,  and  Africa  north  of  the 
Sahara  and  the  Sudan." 

We  are  told  also  of  man's  social  and  relig- 
ious evolution,  which  is  not  disputed  by  any- 
body who  is  a  student  of  history ;  for  doubt- 
less and  evidently  such  evolution  is  going  on 
today.  While  once,  with  primitive  man,  mar- 
riage was  little  more  than  animal  mating 
and  religion  nothing  more  than  a  vague  idea 
of  some  future  existence,  today  there  is  a 
deeper  sacredness  connected  with  marriage 
and  the  family  life,  and  we  really  live  as 
social  beings  in  a  great  social  order;  while 
religiously  we  have  grown  in  our  conception 

27 


of  God  and  humanity,  with  our  theology  and 
our  brotherhood  of  man,  with  our  churches 
and  our  denominations,  our  rehgions  and  our 
creeds,  our  faith  and  our  practice. 


28 


CHAPTER  II. 


TRUTH  AND  THE  SEEKING  AFTER  IT. 

It  is  noted  that  the  title  of  this  book  is, 
If  Evolution  Is  True.  I  have  not  undertaken 
to  prove  that  it  is  true.  If  I  had  set  myself 
to  this  task,  more  than  one  small  volume 
would  have  been  the  result  of  my  efforts. 
The  volumes  already  written  on  the  subject 
of  evolution  are  bulky  and  numerous.  I  have 
merely  stated,  with  some  degree  of  sym- 
pathy, a  few  things  claimed  by  modern 
scientists  as  pointing  towards  the  fact  of 
evolution. 

If  evolution  is  true,  certain  questions  arise 
in  those  minds  which  really  want  to  know  the 
whole  truth.  The  human  mind  wants  to  go 
farther  than  to  conclude  that  evolution  is  a 
fact,  whether  it  be  the  mind  of  the  learned 
philosopher  or  the  mind  of  the  most  humble 
recipient  of  stated  facts  from  the  scientific 
world.  There  is  deep  down  in  the  human 
soul  a  crying  for  the  truth,  a  crying  for  the 
light,  and  oftentimes  with  "no  language  but 
a  cry."  Thoughts  are  sometimes  too  deep 
and  too  sacred  to  be  uttered.  But  men  have 
the  right  to  seek  to  know  how  to  ask  ques- 
tions, and  equally  as  true  have  they  the  right 


29 


to  find,  in  so  far  as  possible,  a  satisfactory 
answer  to  all  worthy  questions. 

I  hold  that  wheresoever  there  is  such  a 
longing  cry  in  the  soul  of  man  it  ought  not 
to  be  suppressed.  Why  smother  it,  and 
travel  on  unsatisfied  and  restless,  or  fickle, 
as  the  case  may  be,  to  the  end  of  the  earthly 
journey?  The  desire  for  searching  after  the 
truth  should  not  be  smothered,  for  if  it  is, 
I  believe  it  more  oftentimes  results  in  fickle- 
ness than  anything  else.  The  seeker  is  told 
hy  some  careless,  short-sighted  person  that 
his  undertakings  are  foolish  and  dangerous, 
and  he  gives  up,  let  us  imagine,  to  be  content 
with  an  idle  mind,  which  is  "the  devil's  work- 
shop." Such  a  person  is  more  dangerous  to 
human  society  than  any  diligent,  careful 
student  in  any  branch  of  science  can  ever  be. 
There  is  no  real  danger  in  careful  investiga- 
tion. 

The  questions  arise  in  every  thinking  man. 
He  may  have  been  taught  while  growing  to 
manhood  to  condemn  such  doctrine,  to  dis- 
miss the  thought  from  his  mind,  without 
even  making  investigation.  But  when  he 
steps  out  as  a  free  man  to  live  his  life  among 
free  men,  he  comes,  in  many  cases,  to  the 
conclusion  that  he  has  the  right  to  search  for 


30 


the  truth.  In  his  pursuit  he  sometimes  be- 
comes entangled  with  doubt — dark  doubt, 
that  sees  no  Hght,  and  that  sees  no  meaning 
to  Hfe,  with  so  much  of  strange,  mysterious, 
hurting  pain  within  himself  that  he  feels  he 
cannot  live  nor  can  he  die,  except  it  be  to 
follow  some  trail  to  some  place  of  sacrifice, 
a  place  of  slaughter,  and  there,  unseen,  to 
end  it  ail;  but  when  such  is  done — ^the  place 
found,  the  knife  drawn — he  looks  to  see,  not 
a  ram  caught  in  the  bush,  but  a  ray  of  light 
appearing  in  the  East,  and  he  watches  it 
grow,  and  change,  and  brighten,  until  the 
full-orbed  sun  rises  and  a  new  day  is  on  and 
a  dark  night  gone. 

Which,  then,  is  worth  more  to  humanity 
and  to  God — the  boy  discouraged  and  ending 
in  fickleness,  or  the  one  who  at  one  time 
thought  it  was  all  in  vain  and  fatal  to  him, 
but  who  came  through  the  storm  of  doubt  to 
vital  faith,  through  darkness  to  light,  fully 
persuaded  that  God  is  in  it  all,  and  who  is  not 
afraid  of  anything  that  anybody,  anywhere, 
may  discover  or  assert  at  any  time? 

Sometime  it  is  not  really  doubt,  after  all, 
that  the  fellow  runs  up  against,  so  much  as  it 
is  a  struggle  to  appropriate  the  new  truth 
discovered.   It  is  so  different  from  what  he 


31 


has  been  taught  to  believe  that  he  can  scarce- 
ly grasp  it.  But  after  it  is  taken  as  truth, 
and  he  sees  it  harmonizing  with  the  truth 
already  known,  he  arises  with  joy  to  thank 
God  for  the  truth  so  mysteriously  fixed  or 
hidden,  and  now  so  clearly  seen.  Then  is  he 
the  stronger  for  his  place  in  Time  and 
Eternity. 

I  say  to  the  young  man  or  woman,  Seek 
after  all  the  scientific  facts  that  can  be  found, 
and  in  it  all  seek  to  see  the  hand  of  God. 
Such  seeking  cannot  lead  one  far  astray.  If 
in  this  seeking  one  decides  that  God  has  been 
billions  of  years  making  man,  one  may  also 
decide  that,  after  all  and  in  it  all,  God  is. 
This  age  needs  to  know  that  both  God  and 
scientific  facts  may  be  sought  and  found,  and 
that  neither  will  work  against  the  other. 

If  evolution  is  true,  then,  let  it  be  true,  and 
let  it  be  accepted  as  true.  If  it  is  true,  it  ia 
a  part  of  all  great  truth,  and  a  sacred  part. 
If  it  is  true,  it  is  right  to  believe  it  is  true, 
and  no  man  should  be  afraid  of  this  truth. 
If  it  is  true  (and  thousands  declare  it  is),  let 
all  the  orthodox  Christian  world  deny  it  and 
let  me  believe  it,  and  if  I  am  right,  I  am  on 
the  side  of  safety ;  for  if  it  is  true,  God  made 


32 


it  true,  and  I  am  perfectly  right  in  standing 
with  God. 

No  man  has  the  right,  without  making  the 
most  thorough  and  painstaking  investigation 
of  all  scientific  discoveries,  to  assert  that  evo- 
lution is  not  true.  The  belief  in  evolution  is 
not  necessarily  dangerous.  If  it  is  a  lie  it  is 
dangerous,  but  if  it  is  truth — it  is  as  treach- 
erous for  man  to  trample  this  truth  under 
foot  as  to  trample  upon  any  great  truth.  If 
evolution  is  true,  it  is  a  sacred  truth,  and 
man  should  calmly  and  reverently,  even  with 
uncovered  head  and  open  mind  and  heart, 
approach  it  to  make  investigation. 

Many  Godly  scientists  are  often  criticised 
and  pronounced  infidels  and  dangerous,  while 
deep  down  within  them  there  is  a  calmness 
and  there  is  poise  with  the  consolation  that 
there  is  One  who  knows  and  sympathizes,  and 
they  courageously  go  forth  in  their  busy  pur- 
suits, conscious  of  the  fact  that  ''right  the 
day  must  win."  • 

Just  here  it  is  appropriate  and  right  to 
make  the  assertion  that  the  human  race  is 
seriously  and  pitiably  hindered  in  its  forward 
march  by  the  unwillingness  and  stupid  slow- 
ness, on  the  part  of  the  multitudes,  in  not 


33 


laying  hold  of  the  truth  as  found  by  the  few, 
or  in  not  seeking  after  that  truth.  It  is  a 
great  struggle  for  great  truths  to  be  discov- 
ered, and  then  through  struggle  the  poor 
discoverer  lives  to  tell  the  tale,  and  dies,  in 
many  an  instance,  weary  in  heart,  unappre- 
ciated, and  unmourned.  "The  great  achieve- 
ments of  a  people  are  generally  wrought  by 
the  minority." 

The  facts  that  come  to  us,  therefore,  from 
the  world  of  science,  and  all  light  or  sign  of 
light  pointing  in  that  direction,  should  be 
recognized  and  appreciated.  If  they  are  true 
facts  and  if  it  is  true  light,  no  other  truth 
can  be  hurt  because  these  are  true.  Then  if 
these  things  are  true,  let  those  who  submit 
these  truths  and  those  to  whom  they  are  sub- 
mitted act  as  brother  with  brother,  and  the 
putting  together  of  all  truths  known  will 
make  a  happy  day  for  earth  and  heaven. 


34 


CHAPTER  in. 


SCIENCE  AND  RELIGION. 

If  evolution  is  true,  is  there  any  broad  or 
frightening  contrast  between  science  and  re- 
ligion? They  seem  to  have  been  so  contrast- 
ed as  to  make  it  broad  and  frightening,  for 
the  preceding  years  have  witnessed,  as  it 
were,  a  pitched  battle  between  the  two,  just 
as  if  there  were  no  common  God  over  both. 
Too  many  scientists  have  been  inclined  to 
believe  that  there  is  no  God,  while  too  many 
religionists  have  been  too  rigid  in  their  criti- 
cisms against  the  claims  of  science.  But  to- 
day, after  the  advance  of  science  and  religion, 
after  the  growth  of  the  human  brotherhood 
in  its  discoveries  in  all  fields,  in  its  sympa- 
thies, and  in  its  fellowship,  is  there  any  real- 
place  for  a  battle  between  the  two  ? 

In  partly  answering  this  question,  I  refer 
to  a  prefatory  remark  in  Drummond's  "Nat- 
ural Law  in  the  Spiritual  World,**  which  reads 
as  follows:  ^'Science  is  tired  of  reconcilia- 
tions between  two  things  which  never  should 
have  been  contrasted;  Religion  is  offended  by 
the  patronage  of  an  ally  which  it  professes 
not  to  need ;  and  the  critics  have  rightly  dis- 
covered that,  in  most  cases  where  Science  is^ 


35 


either  pitted  against  Religion  or  fused  with 
it,  there  is  some  fatal  misconception  to  begin 
with  as  to  the  scope  and  province  of  either." 

It  should  be  recognized,  therefore,  that 
each  has  a  place — a  "scope  and  province." 
Then  if  this  is  true,  there  should  be  no  scrap- 
ping between  the  two. 

Why  fight?  Why  rage  one  against  the 
other  ?  God  is  back  of,  and  in,  both.  Science 
is  a  fact,  and  no  man  can  deny  it.  Since 
there  is  a  scientific  world,  God  made  it  so,  for 
"without  Him  was  not  anything  made  that 
was  made."  Religion  is  a  fact.  God  made 
it  possible.  There  is  a  difference.  There  is 
a  place  for  both,  but  each  can  be  a  blessing 
to  the  other. 

No  man,  I  suppose,  in  this  great  day  of  en- 
lightenment, would  dare  say,  or  wish  to  be- 
lieve, that  we  live  in  a  lawless  world.  Then, 
if  there  are  laws  at  work  in  the  natural 
world,  let  those  laws  be  discovered  and  the 
results  of  such  discoveries  be  turned  over 
to  the  theologian.  The  contention  and  in- 
terest of  theology  are  not  against  law,  but 
rather,  with  science,  it  must  insist  upon  law. 
Such  is  the  opinion  of  Henry  Churchill  King, 
and  to  quote  him  exactly,  he  says :   "No  man 


36 


is  without  concern  in  the  question,  Is  there 
any  really  rational  universe,  with  any  justi- 
fiable end  ?  Have  ideals  of  any  kind  any  real 
place  in  this  universe  ?  The  simple  fact  that 
the  so-called  'problem  of  eviV  is  a  universal 
problem,  that  it  necessarily  arises  for  every 
thoughtful  man,  is  the  best  possible  proof 
that  every  man  actually  makes  the  assump- 
tion which  underlies  the  ideal  contention 
that  mechanism  is  means  only.  That  is,  all 
these  questionings  concerning  the  problem  of 
evil  assume  that  the  world  ought  to  have 
worth,  and  not  mere  logical  consistency,  if  it 
is  to  be  really  rational." 

So  long  as  scientific  investigation  simply 
seeks  the  facts,  and  thereby  makes  more 
clear  to  mankind  how  God  did  really  proceed, 
we  ought  to  be  glad  to  know  what  science 
really  finds.  Thorough  and  competent  in- 
vestigation is  the  only  demand  religion  ought 
to  make  of  science,  that  science  be  purified 
by  religion  as  well  as  religion  by  science,  so 
that  science  may  become  the  great  expositor 
of  nature.  And  Wordsworth  says : 

"Science  then 
Shall  be  a  precious  visitant;  and  then 
And  only  then,  he  worthy  of  her  name: 
For  then  her  heart  shall  kindle,  her  dull  eye, 
Dull  and  inanimate,  no  more  shall  hang 


37 


Chained  to  its  object  in  brute  slavery; 

But  taught  with  patient  interest  to  watch 

The  process  of  things,  and  serve  the  cause 

Of  order  and  distinctness,  nor  for  this 

Shall  it  forget  that  its  most  noble  use. 

Its  most  illustrious  province,  must  be  found 

In  furnishing  clear  guidance,  a  support, 

Not  treacherous,  to  the  mind's  excursive  power." 

So,  with  this  as  clear,  he  must  be  right  who 
says  that  **the  only  answer  to  erroneous  crit- 
icism or  science  is  better  criticism  or  science, 
not  the  forbidding  of  investigation."  He  who 
would  hinder  true  investigation,  in  whatso- 
ever field  undertaken,  stands  in  the  way  of  all 
real  progress. 

On  the  other  hand,  let  it  be  said  that  he 
who  carelessly  investigates  in  any  field  or 
branch  of  science,  and  investigates  without 
real  sympathy  for  the  whole  of  truth,  is  not 
worthy  of  the  name  of  scientist,  and  is 
worthy  only  of  the  most  severe  condemnation 
from  all  who  are  great  and  true.  Further- 
more, I  agree  with  Carpenter,  that  "when 
science,  passing  beyond  its  own  limits,  as- 
sumes to  take  the  place  of  theology,  and  sets 
up  its  own  conception  of  the  order  of  nature 
as  a  sufiicient  account  of  its  cause,  it  is  in- 
vading a  province  of  thought  to  which  it  has 
no  claim,  and  not  unreasonably  provokes  the 
hostility  of  its  best  friends."    That  is  the 


38 


fault  of  the  scientist ;  not  of  science.  Science 
itself  does  not  claim  to  be  able  to  lead  a  soul 
to  God,  but  it  helps  in  finding  where  God  has 
been  and  how  He  has  worked. 

With  regard,  therefore,  to  all  that  is  dear 
to  science  and  religion,  let  humanity  hold  to 
science  with  the  left  hand  and  turn  with  the 
right  hand  toward  religion,  and  say:  "Open 
thou  mine  eyes,  that  I  may  behold  wondrous 
things,  more  wondrous  than  the  shining 
worlds  can  tell."  It  is  great  to  believe  with 
Lemuel  Moss,  "that  just  as  the  workman  in 
the  tunnel  of  St.  Gothard,  working  from 
either  end,  met  at  last  to  shake  hands  in  the 
very  central  root  of  the  mountain,  so  students 
of  nature  and  students  of  Christianity  will 
yet  join  hands  in  the  unity  of  reason  and 
faith,  in  the  heart  of  their  deepest  mys- 
teries." 


39 


CHAPTER  IV. 


WHAT  OF  GOD? 

If  evolution  is  true,  what  should  be  the 
human  conception  of  God  ?  Is  God  to  be  less 
adored,  or  thought  of  as  having  less  to  do 
with  creation,  or  taken  to  be  any  the  less 
God? 

This  is  a  question  of  primary  importance, 
as  well  as  a  question  of  deep  interest,  for 
some  believers  in  evolution  have  left  God  out 
of  the  whole  scheme  and  process  of  things. 
To  believe  in  spontaneous  generation  for  the 
very  beginning  of  all  life,  and  then  in  just 
simply  a  natural  selection  of  species  for  the 
whole  course  of  evolution  until  man  is  the 
final  and  highest  product,  with  no  God  save 
nature  to  direct  the  selections,  is  an  erron- 
eous belief.  No  man  can  explain  away  the 
great  First  Cause.  The  claim  of  spontaneous 
generation  will  not  be  accepted  as  a  substi- 
tute for  the  Infinite  Creator.  It  makes  no 
difference  how  long  the  process  of  evolution 
has  been  going  on,  God  is  back  of  the  process 
and  in  the  process  to  its  end.  He  is  back  of, 
and  Creator  of,  the  first  germ  of  life.  We 
recognize  life,  but  God  was  the  Life  back  of 
all  other  life.   We  recognize  laws  of  nature, 


41 


but  God  was  the  great  Lawgiver. 

Even  Huxley  announces  that  the  doctrine 
of  life  from  life  is  "victorious  along  the  whole 
line  at  the  present  day/'  And  even  though 
he  wished  it  otherwise,  Professor  Tyndall  is 
compelled  to  say :  "I  affirm  that  no  shred  of 
trustworthy  experimental  testimony  exists 
to  prove  that  life  in  our  day  has  ever  ap- 
peared independently  of  antecedent  life." 

So  far  as  I  am  concerned,  and  so  far  as  any 
man  should  be  concerned,  let  God  be  recog- 
nized as  God  and  Creator,  and  then  let  that 
first  small  germ  of  life  finally,  by  God's  power 
and  guiding  hand,  through  the  long  millions 
of  years,  result  in  all  the  fine  products  of  life 
with  man  as  its  climax.  If  that  was  His 
plan,  or  whatsoever  was  His  plan,  greatly 
to  be  praised  is  our  God. 

The  following  quotation  here  from  Kobert 
Chalmer's  "Vestiges  of  Creation"  is  appro- 
priate and  helpful:  "Let  no  one  suppose 
there  is  any  necessary  disrespect  for  the 
Creator  in  thus  tracing  His  laws  in  their 
minute  and  familiar  operations.  There  is 
really  no  true  great  and  small,  grand  and 
familiar,  in  Nature.  Such  only  appear  when 
we  thrust  ourselves  in  as  a  point  from  which 


42 


to  start  in  judging.  Let  us  pass,  if  possible, 
beyond  immediate  impressions,  and  see  all  in 
relation  to  cause,  and  we  shall  chastenedly 
admit  that  the  whole  is  alike  worshipful. 

*  *  *  The  Creator,  then,  is  seen  to  have 
formed  our  earth,  and  effected  upon  it  a  long 
and  complicated  series  of  changes,  in  the 
same  manner  in  which  we  find  that  He  con- 
ducts the  affairs  of  Nature  before  our  living 
eyes;  that  is,  in  the  manner  of  natural  law. 

*  *  *  Here  at  once  is  the  whole  region  of 
the  inorganic  taken  out  of  the  dominion  of 
marvel,  and  placed  under  an  idea  of  Divine 
regulation." 

This  is  a  scientific  view  which  should  be 
appreciated.  This  is  a  man  who  believes  in 
nature  at  work,  with  a  God  over  nature  and 
back  of  nature,  as  Creator  and  as  Guide. 
God  can  be  creator  of  life  and  of  man  through 
a  billion-year  process,  if  He  chooses,  as  well 
as  to  create  in  a  moment.  No  less  is  His 
power  in  so  doing,  and  many,  along  with 
myself,  are  inclined  to  have  a  larger  concep- 
tion of  God  in  thinking  of  Him  as  the  original 
Designer  of  all  things  and  then  of  creating 
that  small  beginning  of  life  and  setting  it  to 
work,  and  working  with  and  in  it  all,  to  de- 
velop and  unfold,  finally  and  gradually,  those 


43 


splendid  forms  of  life  which  would  please 
Him.  If  this  was  His  method,  what  a  De- 
signer !  What  an  Infinite  Intelligence !  What 
an  Omnipotence!  What  an  Omniscience! 
How  unmistakable  His  calculations!  How 
gratified  He  must  have  been  to  look  upon 
that  first  man,  as  the  budding  flower  of  that 
whole  stalk  of  life,  after  all  the  long  process 
of  use  and  disuse,  selection  and  rejection, 
change  and  adaptation — this  best  of  all  His 
creation,  this  birth  out  of  all  struggle,  this 
fittest  of  all  in  triumphant  survival — man, 
in  the  very  image  of  God ! 

If  the  Psalmist  had  known  all  this,  it  seems 
that  his  considerations  of  the  heavens  and  of 
life  would  have  been  far  greater,  even,  and 
that  his  exclamation  would  have  been  hurled 
out  of  a  far  deeper  wonder:  "What  is  man, 
that  thou  art  mindful  of  him!  *  *  *  Thou 
hast  made  him  a  little  lower  than  the  angels, 
and  hast  crowned  him  with  glory  and 
honor!" 

As  the  farmer  plants  with  all  confidence 
his  seed  of  corn  in  the  springtime,  and  works 
and  waits  through  the  months,  beholding  the 
tiny  and  the  growing  stalk,  and  the  blade 
after  blade,  and  then  the  shoot,  to  behold 
finally  the  full  corn  in  the  ear,  so  perhaps  the 


44 


Creator  planted  the  germ  with  His  plan  for 
man,  finally  to  see  him  as  designed.  And 
God,  either  gradually  or  in  the  twinkling  of 
an  eye,  but  somehow  in  a  mysterious  way, 
"breathed  into  man  the  breath  of  life,  and 
''^man  became  a  living  soul." 


45 


CHAPTER  V. 

WHAT  OF  HIGHER  CRITICISM? 

If  evolution  is  true,  can  the  Church  afford 
to  condemn  higher  criticism  of  the  Bible  as 
such?  My  answer  at  once  is,  Not  by  any 
means,  unless  the  Church  wishes  to  be  de- 
prived of  a  blessing.  Constructive  criticism 
can  never  do  any  harm,  and  it  should  never 
be  condemned. 

Higher  criticism  is  the  logical  and  inevita- 
ble thing  along  with  the  scientific  view  of  the 
world.  Scientific  investigations  and  discov- 
eries necessarily  give  rise  to  a  critical  view 
of  the  Bible.  This  does  not  mean  an  attack 
on  the  Bible,  and  the  Church  should  have  no 
real  fear  of  its  outcome,  but  should  rather 
welcome  it,  so  long  as  this  biblical  investiga- 
tion is  competent,  and  is  made  without  preju- 
dice, and  is  made  with  the  motive  of  finding 
the  real  truth. 

Rightly  and  soundly  has  Henry  Churchill 
King  spoken  to  this  point,  as  seen  in  the  fol- 
lowing statements:  "It  is  unfortunate  that 
in  the  early  stages  of  higher  criticism  in 
America,  for  particular  reasons,  it  came  to 
be  associated,  in  the  minds  of  many,  with  a 
rather  bitter  and  arrogant  spirit;  and  it  is 


47 


even  more  unfortunate  that,  for  many  more, 
for  other  special  reasons,  it  was  identified 
with  the  most  extreme  results  of  an  a  priori 
anti-supernaturalistic  school.  It  ought  to  be 
clear  to  every  one  by  this  time,  however,  that 
higher  criticism  is  a  method,  not  results ;  and 
that,  like  the  historical  or  scientific  method 
anywhere,  it  will  give  sound  results  only  as 
the  investigator  is  competently  furnished  for 
his  particular  inquiry,  is  modest  in  face  of 
the  facts,  is  free  from  prejudice,  and  is  of 
genuine  soundness  of  judgment." 

Through  the  course  of  higher  criticism  so 
far  the  critics  have  been  in  danger  of  the 
extreme  view,  on  the  one  hand,  that  the 
record  of  divine  revelation  must  be  without 
touch  of  human  error,  and  on  the  other  hand, 
the  view  that  the  supernatural  is  impossible. 
But  higher  criticism  is  not  to  be  condemned 
because  some  have  abused  its  methods,  along 
with  their  false  views  of  things. 

The  Church,  then,  should  frankly  face  the 
facts,  "without  timidity  and  without  preju- 
dice." Both  the  critic  and  the  student  are 
under  obligation  to  each  other  to  be  free  from 
prejudice.  The  learned  critic  rightfully  has 
his  place,  and  so  has  the  student  and  zealous 
worker.    There  is  no  place  for  prejudice. 


48 


Whether  it  be  racial,  religious,  denomina- 
tional, or  wherever  found  and  of  whatsoever 
character,  it  is  to  be  condemned.  Prejudice 
is  never  a  sign,  or  mark,  of  greatness,  but 
of  littleness  and  narrowness.  It  indicates 
small  capacity,  dim  vision,  and  little  or  no 
sympathy. 

Criticism.,  instead  of  being  a  hindrance,  is 
a  real  help  to  the  earnest  student  of  the 
Bible.  According  to  Dr.  George  Adam  Smith, 
"If  one  person  is  likely  to  suffer  shipwreck 
through  the  employment  of  higher  criticism, 
the  faith  of  ten  will  break  down — is  breaking 
down — for  lack  of  the  very  help  it  would 
bring."  And,  quoting  King  again,  "So  far 
as  the  spiritual  life  is  concerned,  all  these 
critical  processes  are  only  means  to  higher 
ends." 

Let  it  be  remembered  that  higher  criticism 
does  not  deny  the  Bible,  nor  revelation,  nor 
truth.  It  seeks  only  to  find  how  God  did 
things,  and  how  He  spake,  through  whom  His 
messages  came  to  men  and  when,  and  to  find 
the  real  truth  whether  it  be  old  or  new,  just 
as  the  scientist  seeks  to  find  in  the  natural 
world  the  facts  as  God  so  caused  them  to 
come  about.  The  books  of  the  Bible,  and 
their  worth  to  the  world,  remain  fundament- 


49 


ally  the  same  after  the  discoveries  of  higher 
criticism,  just  as  the  natural  world  about  us 
is  not  changed  one  bit  by  the  discoveries  of 
modern  science.  Just  as  science  makes  more 
intelligible  the  natural  world  about  us  unto 
all  who  seek  to  study  it,  so  does  higher  criti- 
cism make  more  intelligible  God's  Book  to  its 
students.  It  comes  knocking  at  our  doors  as 
a  messenger  of  truth,  and  who  is  afraid  to 
open  the  door  for  the  light  of  truth  to  walk 
in?  Ah,  how  often  men  turn  away  angels 
unawares !  How  often  men  fight,  when  they 
think  they  are  fighting  the  enemies  of  God's 
Word  and  of  truth,  and  they  are  fighting  the 
very  servants  of  truth ! 

It  will  not  hurt  the  Church  to  know  the 
truth.  It  may  be  necessary  for  the  Church, 
from  time  to  time,  to  reconstruct  its  theology, 
but  it  will  never  be  called  upon  to  reconstruct 
the  truth.  Not  only  is  the  mind  of  man 
growing  in  this  scientific  age,  but  all  that  is 
connected  with  the  human  soul  in  its  deepest 
reality  is  broadening,  deepening,  expanding, 
and  it  sees  today  a  larger  and  grander  and 
different  world  of  spiritual  truth  than  was 
ever  realized  by  the  great  souls  of  other 
days.  We  do  not  laugh  at  the  thoughts  and 
efforts  and  standards  of  those  old  people,  for 


50 


religious  effort  and  faith  are  always  pecul- 
iarly sacred  things,  in  whatsoever  age  they 
are  seen,  or  by  whatsoever  people,  and  seek- 
ing whatsoever  god  they  are  taught  to  be- 
lieve. 

To  conclude  these  few  remarks  on  the 
place  of  higher  criticism,  I  will  use  the  fol- 
lowing paragraph  from  Dr.  Orr's  book,  "The 
Christian  View  of  God  and  the  World": 
"The  biblical  conception  is  separated  from 
every  other  by  its  monotheistic  basis,  its 
unique  clearness,  its  organic  unity,  its  moral 
character  and  its  teleological  aim.  It  does 
not  matter  for  the  purposes  of  this  argument 
what  dates  we  assign  to  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  in  which  these  views  are  found — 
whether  we  attribute  them,  with  the  critics, 
to  the  age  of  the  prophets,  or  to  any  other. 
These  views  are  at  least  there  many  centuries 
before  the  Christian  age  began,  and  they  are 
found  nowhere  else  than  on  the  soil  of  Israel. 
This  is  the  singular  fact  the  critic  has  to  face, 
and  we  cannot  profess  to  wonder  that,  im- 
partially studying  it,  voices  should  be  heard 
from  the  midst  of  the  advanced  school  itself, 
unhesitatingly  declaring.  Date  your  books 
when  you  will,  this  religion  is  not  explicable 
save  on  the  hypothesis  of  Revelation." 


51 


CHAPTER  VI. 


V/HAT  OF  THE  BIBLICAL  ACCOUNT  OF 
CREATION? 

If  evolution  is  true,  what  further  thing  are 
we  to  say  in  this  book  as  to  the  account  of 
creation  as  found  in  Genesis,  whosoever  the 
author  was  of  that  first  book  of  the  Bible? 
This  is  the  one  big  question,  perhaps,  stand- 
ing in  the  mind  of  any  one  to  whom  any  men- 
tion of  evolution  is  made,  at  least  when  the 
first  thoughts  are  had  concerning  this  doc- 
trine and  possibility.  For  that  reason  several 
remarks  have  already  been  made  in  this  little 
volume  which  should  rightly  hold  their  place 
in  the  discussion  of  this  particular  question. 
But  if  a  slight  repetition  is  made  here  and 
there  in  this  book,  let  the  reader  understand 
that  the  author  of  this  volume  wishes  for 
certain  things  to  be  perfectly  clear  in  the 
minds  of  those  who  shall  read  these  pages. 

Right  at  this  point  is  where  a  great  chasm 
seems  to  yawn  between  the  thoughts  of  some 
people  and  the  claims  of  evolutionists.  They 
seem  to  see  no  possibility  of  a  long  process 
of  creation  and  still  hold  to  the  so-called 
Mosaic  description  of  creation.  Great  minds, 
too,  are  numbered  in  this  class,  of  which  the 


53 


mind  of  that  noble-hearted  William  Jennings 
Bryan  is  one.  No  one  would  dare  say  that 
his  is  not  a  great  soul ;  but  he  has  made  some 
very  hard  statements  against  evolutionists, 
yet  with  a  motive  pure,  for  he  would  not 
break  away  from  orthodox  biblical  faith.  I 
do  not  wish  for  him  to  depart  from  his  faith 
in  the  Scriptures,  nor  for  any  man  to  do  so. 
That  is  why  I  have  made  the  effort  in  writ- 
ing this  book  to  help  puzzled  minds  to  be 
clarified,  that  the  thousands  of  young  men 
and  women  especially  who  are  doing  some 
scientific  thinking  in  these  days  may  see  how 
that  the  Scriptures  and  evolution  may  both 
be  true  fundamentally.  Such  comments  as 
Mr.  Bryan  is  making,  as  much  as  I  honor 
him,  are  only  making  it  harder  for  the  multi- 
tudes who  can  never  consistently  give  up 
their  evolutionary  beliefs.  While  one  here 
and  there  may  be  helped  by  his  remarks, 
hundreds  have  gone  down  deeper  into  doubt 
and  some  into  gross  infidelity. 

I  am  glad  to  say  to  as  many  as  will  take 
courage  from  this  word  out  of  a  heart  of  deep 
conviction,  There  is  no  necessary  conflict  to 
be  found  between  the  statements  in  Genesis 
and  the  claims  of  the  evolutionist.  Sticking 
closely  to  the  letter,  we  will,  of  course,  find 


54 


some  inconsistences.  But  we  must  remember 
that  the  author  of  Genesis  was  not  an  eye 
witness  of  creation.  He  certainly  did  not  see 
the  first  man  that  was  made,  much  less  the 
process  of  making  him.  We  must  remember 
also  that,  even  though  that  author  was  in- 
spired of  God,  he  did  not  know  all  things. 
No  one  could  dare  say  that  the  author  of 
Genesis  even  knew  the  earth  was  round, 
while  at  the  same  time  it  was  round,  just  as 
it  is  today.  Neither,  of  course,  did  he  know 
anything  about  the  law  of  gravitation,  which 
was  at  work  then  as  now.  These  scientific 
discoveries  have  been  made  since  that  good 
day.  Yet  we  believe  he  was  inspired.  We 
believe  in  revelation. 

Of  course  Mr.  Bryan  is  right  when  he  says 
that  the  rotundity  of  the  earth  and  gravita- 
tion do  not  make  so  much  difference  with  a 
man's  soul,  in  so  far  as  a  knowledge  of  those 
things  is  concerned.  My  argument  is  not  that, 
but  this:  Not  all  things  known  today  were 
known  then,  and  we  have  to  admit  the  pos- 
sibility of,  and  the  fact  of,  inspiration  where 
there  is  not  a  knowledge  of  all  things.  Inspir- 
ation does  not  mean  that  God  gave  every 
word,  but  that  He  gave  thought.  The  one 
inspired  had  to  express  that  thought  in  the 


55 


words  that  could  be  chosen  out  of  his  own 
vocabulary,  using  his  own  style,  imagination, 
and  holy  passion. 

If  it  is  conceded  that  there  is  use  of  figura- 
tive expressions  anywhere  in  the  Bible  (and 
certainly  Christ  made  constant  use  of  them) , 
we  might  as  well  conclude  that  the  author  of 
Genesis  made  use  of  some  such  expressions. 
If  we  know  that  any  present  day  writer  uses 
imagination,  we  may  also  know  that  the 
author  of  Genesis  made  use  of  imagination. 

Then,  how  much  can  be  expressed  of  won- 
drous and  deep  truth  in  one  figurative  expres- 
sion! When  shall  we  ever  know  all  that 
Christ  meant  in  those  figurative  expressions 
of  His?  We  find  ourselves  to  this  day  dif- 
fering in  opinion  as  to  some  of  His  teachings. 
If  it  was  Moses  that  wrote  the  book,  what  did 
Moses  mean  when  he  described  that  beautiful 
order  of  creation?  Rather  what  did  God 
mean  to  tell  His  children  ?  Did  he  mean  that, 
it  would  be  a  certain  sign  of  infidelity,  or 
atheism,  for  a  man  to  state,  "I  believe  that 
God  was  longer  than  a  few  short  days  mak- 
ing this  world  and  the  different  species  and 
possibilities  of  life  found  therein"?  Did  God 
say  what  one  of  those  days  was  in  length 
when  the  ''light  was  not  separated  from 


56 


darkness"?  For  the  sun  was  not  created 
until  the  fourth  day,  according  to  Genesis. 
Is  it  not  possible  that  He  left  it  open,  with 
certain  things  not  said  in  so  many  words, 
that  the  scientific  mind  of  far  later  days 
might  find  certain  satisfaction  in  its  thoughts 
of  a  long  process  of  creation  ?  The  time  was 
not  ripe  then  for  the  revealing  of  such  truth 
in  its  absolute  form.  It  is  a  progressive 
revelation  of  Himself  that  we  notice  all 
through  the  Old  Testament.  The  human  race 
grew  gradually  to  where  His  real  Fatherhood 
was  known. 

Coming  with  a  sound  belief  in  evolution  to 
the  study  of  Genesis  and  its  story  of  creation, 
no  student  should  conclude  that  his  faith  in 
God  or  in  the  Bible  should  be  forsaken.  There 
is  no  need  for  faith  to  be  shattered  in  the 
least. 

We  find  in  Genesis  the  expression,  "He 
formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground." 
What  did  He  mean?  Do  we  not  see  the  pos- 
sibility of  nature  connected  with  that?  Is 
that  not  what  the  scientist  has  been  talking 
about  these  many  years — the  coming  of  man 
through  the  things  that  grew  in  the  dust  or 
dirt?  It  was  the  natural  with  the  Super- 
natural presiding.    One  thought  has  been, 


e57 


according  to  the  Bible,  that  God  picked  up 
dust  and  made  man  in  a  moment,  while  the 
other  thought  has  been,  according  to  science, 
that  God  made  man  gradually  through  the 
dust.  What  is  the  difference  ?  Where  is  the 
conflict?  Where  is  God's  power  compro- 
mised in  the  claims  of  science? 

Listen  to  this — Which  is  more  like  God, 
after  all,  and  His  methods,  as  we  think  of 
His  dealings  with  men  all  through  history? 
Does  God  ever  take  short-cut  routes  in  His 
procedures?  Is  it  not  true  that  the  world's 
leaders  in  thought  and  deed  have  so  gotten 
away  from  the  short-cut  idea  that  preachers 
and  teachers  are  universally  warning  the 
human  family  against  such  methods  ? 

Take  courage,  anybody,  that  God  can 
create  gradually  as  well  as  momentarily. 
Rejoice  that  God  has  the  power,  if  He 
chooses,  to  create  man  in  His  own  image, 
through  any  long  process  He  may  desire,  or 
through  any  seemingly  complicated  series  of 
living  things  with  all  their  changes  that  He 
may  select — even  through  ten  thousand  mil- 
lion years,  if  He  seeks  to  work  at  it  that  long. 
And  rejoice  all  at  the  same  time  that  the 
Bible  is  fundamentally  the  same.  Where  is 
the  mind  that  cannot  conceive  of  that  ?  What 


58 


finite  creature,  with  little  mental  compass, 
would  venture  to  assert  that  God,  with  His 
infinite  power,  could  not  do  such  as  has  just 
been  described  if  that  was  His  choice?  Who 
can  prove  by  the  Bible  that  this  was  not  His 
choice  ? 

God  said,  *'Let  us  make  man  in  our  image.'* 
I  can  well  imagine  that  He  said  those  words 
long  millions  of  years  before  He  saw  man. 
I  can  imagine  that  as  His  own  choice  plan, 
saying  it  with  great  anticipation  and  joy. 

''Let  us  make  man" ! 

"Let  the  Trinity  decide  upon  man  as  the 
climax  of  this  long  line  of  creation — man  in 
our  image — and  man  shall  come  after  a  long 
while  to  have  some  of  our  intelligence,  our 
will-power,  our  soul,  with  a  soul  as  sure  and 
as  pure  as  the  rose  that  blooms  at  the  top 
of  the  brier." 

Then  I  hear  that  conversation  among  the 
Trinity,  and  the  question,  "Vs^ill  man  remain 
pure,  or  will  that  flower  fade  and  die?".  The 
answer  comes,  ''He  may  remain  as  we  fashion 
him,  if  he  desires  with  his  power  of  choice  to 
do  so ;  but  he  will  have  the  capacity  of  falling, 
of  fading,  and  of  dying." 

Created  either  way,  it  is  just  as  possible 


59 


for  man  to  fall  one  way  as  the  other.  When- 
ever man  became  man,  howsoever  he  became 
so,  he  became  capable  of  falling.  If  evolution 
is  true,  it  was  when  man  was  evoluted  to 
that  point  where  he  was  really  man,  con- 
scious of  will-power  and  the  capability  and 
the  freedom  to  choose,  that  he  fell — and  that 
fall  was  nothing  more  than  his  choice  to  have 
his  own  way  and  let  God  alone. 


60 


CHAPTER  VII. 


WHAT  OF  MIRACLE? 

If  evolution  is  true,  the  final  question  in 
this  book  is,  How  can  miracle  be  accounted 
for? 

This  question  has  also  arisen,  as  the  other 
-questions  discussed  in  this  book,  because  of 
the  claims  of  modern  science.  It  is  hoped, 
however,  that  by  this  time  in  the  progress  of 
thought  and  religion,  the  question  as  to  the 
possibility  of  the  miraculous,  or  the  super- 
natural in  nature  or  persons,  has  largely  been 
solved  to  the  peaceful  satisfaction  of  those 
concerned. 

Enough  has  already  been  said  in  this  book 
to  throw  light  upon  the  province  of  miracle. 
The  evolutionist  runs  up  with  miracle  to  be- 
gin with  in  the  great  First  Cause.  He  runs 
up  with  it  in  life's  changes,  great  or  small. 
If  it  is  conceded  that  the  planets  and  the 
stars  have  all  been  hurled  to  their  places  by 
nature,  each  now  working  so  beautifully  in 
its  place,  what  is  that  but  miracle?  If  the 
earth  was  thrown  off  from  the  sun  as  a  ball 
of  fire,  and  through  process  of  time  it  cooled 
sufficiently  for  the  appearance  and  the  exist- 
ence of  life,  and  that  life  came  and  developed 


61 


to  its  present  high  forms,  what  is  that  but 
miracle?  When  we  think  of  the  fact  that 
human  flesh,  finger  nails,  bone,  hair,  teeth, 
and  all  that  the  physical  body  contains,  are 
produced  by  the  daily  bread  and  meat  taken 
into  the  body — what  is  that  but  miracle? 
When  we  see  in  one  field  sheep,  goats,  geese, 
pigs,  and  all  eating  the  same  sort  of  grass, 
and  we  know  that  this  same  grass  is  produc- 
ing wool  on  one,  feather  on  another,  and 
hair  on  another — what  is  that  but  miracle? 

But  it  is  miracle  of  a  supposedly  different 
nature  altogether  that  is  under  discussion. 
Yet  who  knows  how  far  different  it  is?  If 
our  finite  minds  could  comprehend  all,  how 
plainly  the  problem  would  be  solved !  What 
marvelous  harmony  with  the  Infinite  would 
be  recognized ! 

Evolution  in  its  real  sense,  rather  than  giv- 
ing us  uniformity  of  law,  gives  us  successive 
stages  of  law  with  new  laws  coming  in  all 
along,  which  become  dominant,  while  before 
they  had  not  even  appeared.  Then  what  is 
that  law  in  the  higher  stage,  as  judged  from 
the  lower,  but  miracle?  Law  is  universally 
recognized  in  nature,  but  as  Lotze  says,  "It 
is  completely  subordinate  in  significance." 
Law  itself  is  not  God.   God  acts  according  to 


62 


law,  "in  perfect  consistency  with  His  un- 
changing purpose  of  love ;  but  His  action  may 
not  always  be  formulable  under  any  of  the 
laws  of  nature  known  to  us."  "Rare  phe- 
nomena are  not  lawless." 

Dr.  John  H.  Denison  rings  clear  at  this 
point,  as  we  note  in  these  words:  "As  the 
philosophy  of  experience  broadened  out, 
Hume's  postulate  was  reinforced  so  as  to 
read,  'A  miracle  is  contrary  to  a  law  of  na- 
ture ;  therefore  an  overweighting  amount  of 
evidence  is  required  to  prove  it.'  But  the 
same  lack  of  breadth  soon  appeared  in  this 
postulate.  Our  experience  does  not  cover  the 
whole  breadth  of  nature.  We  are  never  cer- 
tain but  that  some  new  and  larger  order  may 
begin  to  disclose  itself,  and  it  is,  in  fact,  just 
such  a  larger  order  which  the  miracles  ap- 
pear to  suggest  and  always  have  suggested 
to  some  of  the  most  spiritual  and  philoso- 
phical minds  of  the  race." 

As  to  the  point  of  God's  personal  approach 
to  men,  since  He  is  a  Spirit  and  certainly  not 
"sub-personal,"  we  cannot  deny  His  right  nor 
His  power  to  make  approach  to  persons  on 
earth,  though  His  appearance  may  seem  to 
be  extremely  miraculous  to  finite  minds. 
There  is  nothing  impossible  to  the  Infinite. 


63 


Finite  minds  in  this  world  gaze  upon  the 
Infinite  oftentimes,  and  wonder  how  the 
Infinite  can  do  what  is  done.  The  scientist 
is  bound  at  times  to  admit,  as  well  as  the 
theologian  is  bound  to  admit,  that  "great  is 
the  mystery  of  godliness." 

God  made  personal  approach,  through  love 
and  power,  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  and 
Christ  Himself  may,  therefore,  be  regarded 
as  the  miracle  of  miracles.  The  fact  of  His 
life,  character,  and  teachings  as  a  miracle  is 
incontestable,  and  He  is  the  great  "New 
Cause." 

Lotze,  again,  in  speaking  of  God's  appear- 
ing to  men  in  the  person  of  Christ,  says: 
"There  is  nothing  whatever  that  stands  in 
opposition  to  the  further  conviction  that  God, 
at  particular  moments  and  in  particular  per- 
sons, may  have  stood  nearer  to  humanity,  or 
may  have  revealed  Himself  at  such  moments 
and  in  such  persons  in  a  more  eminent  way 
than  at  other  moments  and  in  other  persons. 
*  *  *  It  is  even  without  doubt  legitimate  to 
reward  the  relation  in  which  He  (Christ) 
stood  to  God  as  absolutely  unique,  not  only 
as  to  degree  but  also  as  to  its  essential 
quality." 

This  chapter,  this  entire  book,  is  closed 


64 


with  the  following  sentence  from  Henry 
Churchill  King :  "The  question  of  miracle  is^ 
then,  nowhere  the  question  of  the  'isolated 
wonder/  but  everywhere  rather  the  question 
of  the  wider  law,  the  larger  correlation,  the 
dominant  spiritual  order  increasingly  clear 
to  a  growing  spiritual  culture,  the  consis- 
tency of  the  one  great  loving  purpose  of  a 
God  great  enough  and  loving  enough  to  be 
all  that  His  children  need." 


65 


AN  AFTERTHOUGHT. 


After  I  have  written  all  that  is  in 
this  little  book,  I  can  truthfuly  say  that 
I  have  a  ''conscience  void  of  offence  to- 
ward God,  and  toward  men." 

— E.  C.  D. 


67 


WHAT  SOME  CRITICS  HAVE  VERY 
KINDLY  WRITTEN  THE  AUTHOR 
OF  THIS  VOLUME  CONCERN- 
ING ITS  CONTENTS. 


"Your  book,  "If  Evolution  Is  True,"  came  into 
my  hands  yesterday,  and  I  read  it  through  at  once 
with  a  great  deal  of  satisfaction  and  pleasure.  It 
did  me  good  to  know  that  you  had  thought  through 
the  questions  that  have  bobbed  up  afresh  during 
the  last  two  or  three  years  and  that  you  have  gone 
to  the  trouble  to  make  religion  intelligible  to  the 
student  who  has  learned  enough  of  science  to 
realize  that  the  cosmos  of  the  modern  man  is  some- 
what larger  than  that  of  the  ancient  Hebrews.  I 
hope  that  the  book  will  have  a  large  circulation 
and  that  many  other  men  in  North  Carolina  and  in 
other  parts  of  the  Church  will  undertake  to  help 
in  saving  the  Church  from  obscurantism.  Thoughts 
like  those  contained  in  your  book  will  bring  peace 
to  the  thousands  of  young  men  and  women  that 
are  necessarily  more  or  less  disturbed  by  the  scien- 
tific facts  acquired  in  high  school  and  college." 

— DR.  G.  T.  ROWE, 

Editor  Methodist  Review, 

Nashville,  Tenn. 


"I  thank  you  for  sending  me  your  interesting 
discussion  "If  Evolution  Is  True."  I  heartily  agree 
with  your  general  position  that  acceptance  of  the 
doctrine  of  evolution  does  not  compromise  a  man's 
Christian  beliefs." 

— DR.  WM.  L.  POTEAT, 

President  Wake  Forest  Col- 
lege, Wake  Forest,  N.  C. 


69 


"I  am  very  much  pleased  with  it.  As  a  matter 
of  fact  I  am  so  pleased  with  it  that  I  would  like 
to  put  it  in  the  hands  of  every  one  of  our  beginning 
students  in  zoology.  If  you  could  supply  me  with 
four  dozen  copies  I  am  very  sure  they  would  help 
our  students  very  much  indeed  in  getting  hold  of 
the  new  idea  of  evolution  and  at  the  same  time 
retaining  their  fundamental  religious  beliefs." 

—PROP.  Z.  P.  METCALP, 

Department  of  Zoology  and 
Entomology,  State  College, 
Raleigh,  N.  C. 


"I  want  to  thank  you  for  your  very  attractive 
book,  ''If  Evolution  Is  True."  " 

— PREST.  H.  W.  CHASE, 

University  of  North  Carolina, 
Chapel  Hill,  N.  C. 


"It  is  a  fair,  broad  and  intelligent  treatment  of 
the  subject,  and  ought  to  do  good.  I  am  sorry 
any  of  our  people  have  gotten  stirred  up  over  the 
matter  of  evolution,  which  is  a  simple  thing.  There 
are  certain  facts  which  are  accessible  to  everybody 
who  will  give  the  time  and  thought  to  investigate 
them.  On  these  facts  we  rear  the  theory  of  evo- 
lution. 

"Men  differ  in  the  details  of  this  theory,  but 
there  is  substantial  agreement  in  the  main  lines. 
Archaeologists  study  the  remains  of  the  Roman 
Porum  and  the  Athenian  Acropolis,  and  dig  up 
columns,  capitals,  inscriptions,  etc.  These  are 
facts,  which  everybody  can  study  if  they  have  the 
desire  and  the  training.  On  these  facts  Archaeolo- 
gists and  architects  rear  theories  as  to  the  details 
of  the  buildings,  their  restoration,  etc.,  in  the 


70 


Forum  or  on  tlie  Acropolis. 

"They  do  not  agree  wholly  as  to  the  details,  but 
an  of  us  agree  substantially  in  our  views  as  to  the 
number  of  buildings,  their  sites,  their  size,  and 
their  purpose. 

"And  anyway  the  dry-as-dust  facts  do  not  greatly 
help  us  in  the  study  of  Roman  or  Greek  life,  his- 
tory, philosophy.  And  so  it  is  with  evolution.  As 
you  rightly  point  out,  most  of  us  haven't  the  time 
and  the  training  to  investigate  the  facts  on  which 
evolution  is  based,  much  less  interpret  them.  I 
can't  see  why  our  good  friends  who  believe  that 
God  started  the  world  like  a  clock  and  doesn't  have 
to  bother  with  it  any  more  do  not  see  the  danger 
in  that  view.  On  the  contrary,  if  we  believe  in  the 
evolutionary  view  —  always  progress,  always 
change,  always  the  forward  and  upward  movement, 
always  the  optimistic  view — we  must  believe  not 
only  that  God  started  the  process  but  that  He  is 
in  the  midst  of  it,  guiding  it,  molding  it,  shaping 
it  to  His  good  end." 

— DEAN  A.  H.  PATTERSON, 
School  of  Applied  Science, 
University  of  North  Carolina, 
Chapel  Hill,  N.  C. 


"I  read  it  with  real  zest  and  with  a  resulting 
feeling  of  satisfaction. 

"Each  of  us,  in  his  egotism,  thinks  that  Dr.  C. 
Alphonso  Smith  is  right  when  he  repeats  what  has 
so  often  been  said  before,  that  art  consists  in 
another  man's  saying,  doing,  or  writing,  in  finer 
form  or  more  apt  terms  that  I  could  do  it,  that 
which  I  have  myself  thought,  conceived,  or  imag- 
ined, without  giving  expression  to  it.  Measured 


71 


thus  by  my  individual  standard  your  book  ranks 
high. 

"I  am  glad  to  see  you  rising  up  to  a  vision  of,  or 
rather  a  feeling  after  (for  that  is  all  man  is  capa- 
ble of),  the  infinity  above  and  beyond  what  the 
finite  mind  can  conceive  of  as  laws,  natural  or 
divine. 

"I  wish  therefore  to  congratulate  you  on  your 
very  sane  discussion.  I  think  it  is  apt  and  should 
be  very  useful." 

— SIDNEY  S.  ALDERMAN, 
Attorney  at  Law, 
Greensboro,  N.  C. 


OWIN  G     DU'NN.  PRINTER.  NEW  BERN.  N.  C 


72 


